On Fri April 8 2005 13:55, Francis Dupont wrote:
>and intuitively OpenOffice doesn't seem likely either.
>
> => to prefer emacs to OOo is a subtle way to like open source (:-).
OOo is one of those that I mentioned doesn't seem to be able to
generate formatted plain text with appropriate para
> Date: 2005-04-07 17:33
> From: "Alex Rousskov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Thu, 2005/04/07 (MDT), wrote:
>
> >> On Thu, 2005/04/07 (MDT), <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> If text and PDF/PS formats are generated automatically (and correctly)
> >> by
> >> the Toolset from the same source, then
On Fri April 8 2005 07:38, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> I deliberately wanted to make the poll binary, but my
> assumption is that 'neither' must mainly represent that
> proprietary solution. I can't imagine many people generate
> I-Ds using a plain text editor, and intuitively OpenOffice
> doesn't s
> Date: 2005-04-07 19:49
> From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Actually there is not only financial backing to consider but corporate,
> cultural, language, time, etc. This was no problem as long as the IETF wasi
> the technical forum for consensus uncovering for the Academic ASC
In your previous mail you wrote:
I deliberately wanted to make the poll binary, but my
assumption is that 'neither' must mainly represent that
proprietary solution. I can't imagine many people generate
I-Ds using a plain text editor,
=> why? I used a plain text editor before moving t
On Apr 8, 2005 6:40 AM, Elwyn davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That way you could get the best of both worlds... more or less WYSIWYG
> Construction for the bulk of the text and pictures, auto-insertion of
> boilerplate and some way to leverage the references stuff in xml2rfc.
I've written a pl
On Apr 8, 2005 6:48 AM, Bill Sommerfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> my biggest gripe is the fact that (as of the last time I looked) the
> draft version is taken from the input filename rather than text internal
> to the file
If you use , and run
the tool like "xml2rfc input.xml draft-fenner-xml-
On Apr 8, 2005 5:27 AM, Scott W Brim wrote:
> On 4/7/2005 10:36, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote:
> > prefer nroff: 8
> > prefer xml: 37
> > neither: 9
>
> I wonder how many of those have actually written a draft using both?
I picked "neither" since I use both and don't have a strong
pre
On Fri, 2005/04/08 (MDT), <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
my biggest gripe is the fact that (as of the last time I looked) the
draft version is taken from the input filename rather than text internal
to the file, which makes putting this stuff under source control in a
meaningful way really annoying as
Hi Keith,
It is definately backward compatiable as there is a Extended SMTP header
(NCC) that also needs to be in place for the NCC processing to proceed.
Keith Moore wrote:
On Tue April 5 2005 15:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
[followups redirected to [EMAIL PROTECTED] list]
On Apr 8, 2005, at 5:25 AM, Arun Sankar wrote:
It is definately backward compatiable as there is a Extended SMTP
header (NCC) that also needs to be in place for the NCC processing to
proceed.
no, it is not, in at least two ways:
1. with existing MU
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Carl Malamud wrote:
> Hi -
>
> I think a research request to study how protocols are designed and features
> added over time deserves a more accurate answer than an official
> incantation of "they're gone."
Is this more "official":
Internet-Dra
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
>
>>-Original Message-
>>From: Scott W Brim
>>Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 14:27
>>
>>On 4/7/2005 10:36, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote:
>>
>>>Regardless of the interesting side-discussion about 'voting',
>>>wha
> -Original Message-
> From: Scott W Brim
> Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 14:27
>
> On 4/7/2005 10:36, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote:
> > Regardless of the interesting side-discussion about 'voting',
> > what the toy shows after about a day is:
> >
> > prefer nroff: 8
> > prefer xml:
On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 09:27, Elwyn davies wrote:
> Xml2rfc has a mechanism for adding comments which is a little bit more
> trouble than M$Word's but works in very similar ways.
>
> You are right that revision marking is not so easy but the various diff
> tools help. Maybe we ought to ask for som
One big win with the xml2rfc toolchain is draft and rfc references.
Just musing...
With an appropriate set of styles it ought to be possible to make a
processor that turned .rtf files into xml2rfc source. I did think about and
start work on a text draft to xml converter but it turned out to be
Xml2rfc has a mechanism for adding comments which is a little bit more
trouble than M$Word's but works in very similar ways.
You are right that revision marking is not so easy but the various diff
tools help. Maybe we ought to ask for some way to do this before the
xml2rfc improvement window cl
Scott W Brim wrote:
I wonder how many of those have actually written a draft using both?
Isn't it sufficient for one to have to have suffered *roff in other
contexts?
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Elwyn davies wrote:
FYI I am an ex-Word user, now fully converted to xml2rfc.
I thought Word was a convenient way to conform to Draft style and handle
revision control but was frustrated by the toolchain. The main problem I
found was the badly broken 'Generic Text Printer' driver which has not
wo
Elwyn,
As one of those who still use M$Word when writing drafts, I can also
confirm the generic text driver problems. Actually, I have had to
patch the draft parser for each new Windows version. However, after
doing that, I am still fine with using Word for drafts, as I like
WYSIWYG, and have no p
On 4/7/2005 10:36, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote:
> Regardless of the interesting side-discussion about 'voting',
> what the toy shows after about a day is:
>
> prefer nroff: 8
> prefer xml: 37
> neither: 9
I wonder how many of those have actually written a draft using both?
__
I use nroff
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
I deliberately wanted to make the poll binary, but my
assumption is that 'neither' must mainly represent that
proprietary solution. I can't imagine many people generate
I-Ds using a plain text editor, and intuitively OpenOffice
doesn't seem likely either.
It's easy to create your own poll at the sa
As I had already written to the original enquirer privately, I agree that
the research needs the 'design diary' aspects as well as the output
snapshots.
The lack of a permanent archive for some of the mailing lists will be a
problem for historians and others looking back on the IETF process. Perso
FYI I am an ex-Word user, now fully converted to xml2rfc.
I thought Word was a convenient way to conform to Draft style and handle
revision control but was frustrated by the toolchain. The main problem I
found was the badly broken 'Generic Text Printer' driver which has not
worked properly for a
Carl Malamud wrote:
Hi -
I think a research request to study how protocols are designed and features
added over time deserves a more accurate answer than an official
incantation of "they're gone."
Try this site:
http://www.watersprings.org/
You'll find all drafts and diff's between them.
T
I would also be interesting to know how many use Microsoft Word
to produce drafts.
Stewart
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Regardless of the interesting side-discussion about 'voting',
what the toy shows after about a day is:
prefer nroff: 8
prefer xml: 37
neither: 9
which implies a few hundred abst
27 matches
Mail list logo
